Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Section 23 (1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) gives the court the power to order periodical payments. Recent decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal have focused on such orders, considering whether spousal maintenance orders should be made, for how much, and for how long.
In SS v NS (Spousal Maintenance)  EWHC 4183 (Fam) Mostyn J considered the correct approach to periodical payments orders. He found that (save in a wholly exceptional case) maintenance orders can only be made to meet needs. MCA 1973, ss 25A(1)-(2) stipulate that spousal maintenance should be terminated as soon as is ‘just and reasonable’. A maintenance term should be considered unless the payee would be ‘unable to adjust without undue hardship’ to the ending of the payments. This suggests that parliament accepts ‘a degree of not undue hardship’ in making the adjustment. Unless undue hardship would likely be experienced the court ought to provide an end date to a maintenance order.
Assuming that there are ‘hard needs’ which have to be met by a spousal maintenance order, in SS v NS Mostyn J considered the questions: how much? and for how long?
Mostyn J approved of view in the Law Commission report Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements (Law Com No 343, 26 February 2014) that: ‘…the transition to independence, if possible, may mean that one party is not entitled to live for the rest of the parties’ joint lifetimes at the marital standard of living, unless he or she can afford to do so from his or her own resources’, remarking that it is a mistake to regard the marital standard of living as the lodestar, because:
Mostyn J found that the Holy Grail should be ‘where it is just and reasonable, an eventual termination and clean break’. He noted (it seems with approval) the Law Commission’s conclusion that:
‘…the objective of financial orders made to meet needs should be to enable a transition to independence, to the extent that that is possible in light of the choices made within the marriage, the length of the marriage, the marital standard of living, the parties’ expectation of a home, and the continued shared responsibilities (importantly, childcare) in the future. We acknowledge the fact that in a significant number of cases independence is not possible, usually because of age, but sometimes for other reasons arising from choices made during the marriage.’
He also considered the proper approach to the discharge and extension of periodical payments, holding that the same approach to making an order for the first time should be followed. On an application to extend a term an examination would have to be made of whether the implicit premise of the original order of the ability of the payee to achieve independence had been impossible to achieve. On a discharge application an examination would have to be made of the assumption that it was just too difficult to predict eventual independence.
Mostyn J set out 11 factors to be applied when considering spousal maintenance:
Recently, the Court of Appeal in Wright v Wright  EWCA Civ 201 refused an application for permission to appeal by the former wife of a millionaire racehorse surgeon, who was told by a Family Court judge that she has no right ‘to be supported for life’ following her divorce. In that case, having divorced in 2008 following an 11-year marriage, the husband was ordered to pay £33,200 maintenance per year in maintenance in addition to school fees for the couples’ two children (total £75,000), with the proceeds from the sale of their £1.3m home being divided equally.
The husband objected to indefinite payments, effective even after his retirement. He applied to have them reduced. He said that the wife had made ‘no effort whatsoever to seek work’, so he should not be expected to continue paying her so much. The judge hearing the application agreed that the spousal maintenance should eventually stop, ordering that the amount the wife receives should be gradually reduced in the years leading up to her ex-husband’s retirement. The judge said that ‘a working mother at this stage of [the children’s] lives may well provide them with a good role model.’
The application for permission to appeal was dismissed by Pitchford LJ, who told the wife that it was ‘imperative’ that she find a job, just like ‘vast numbers of other women with children’. This case received a lot of publicity, and will surely stimulate many applications to vary or terminate existing maintenance orders. On such applications, the approach by Mostyn J in SS v NS will now guide the court to its decision.
Deborah Dinan-Hayward is a barrister and head of Albion Chambers’ family team. This blog post was first published in the May issue of Albion Chambers family newsletter.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234